Toby Richards wrote an opinion article for NewsForge, claiming that for him, Linux won't get mainstream until Evolution - or another capable Outlook-like client - gets optimized and offers 100% compatibility with Exchange. In the comments section of Newsforge readers offered more reasons as to why Linux is not mainstream, offering a view on their needs. My take: While for my personal, home usage of Linux my needs are different, I agree with Toby that companies won't switch their desktops if full Exchange compatibility isn't reached and if Evolution stops being the memory beast it currently is.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
One key point I want to throw out, (it will apply most to #14):
Windows to Linux is oranges to apple-seeds. We need to either compare the NT Kernel to Linux, Win32 to GNU/Linux, or compare Windows XP to Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, etc. When comparing to Windows, distros are so unique and varied that you cannot just refer to them as "Linux". There is no Linux "OS" in the Windows sense of the words "OS". And we should not *expect* Ubuntu, SuSE, and Redhat to be any more similar than Apple and Windows, as they are different companies. It is purely well-planned convenience that there *is* software that can be used on all Linux distros.
You are correct about that; lets take it even further; what about distros like gnusolaris 
hence I can understand in regards to the reason why it should be called GNU/Linux - because GNU userland can be transplanted into any environment; or in the case of gnusolaris, IIRC, they use the gnu compilers, Debian packaging system and other opensource components.
Regarding the 'planned' part; one could compare the distros to Apple; and how Apple bundle all that you need in the box; you get a system, iLife etc. In the case of GNU/Linux, you get the operating system and all the stuff you need to get on with work.
Can you trust closed source drivers? What if you are a US government contractor or big US company oft targetted for corporate espionage? Can you run those closed source Taiwanese motherboard drivers?
Now how about how ISPs worked with the US government to tap peoples emails and correspondance; considering how compliant the US public is, when ther is the 'if you don't comply and worship the government, you're obvious a terrorist and anti-American' theme in the air (and been like that since the formation of the US), I wouldn't be surprised if the chipset manufacturers don't start adding 'features' in accordance to 'government directives' for 'counter terrorism and protecting the democracy'.
The driver readiness for your hardware upgrade has little to do with the OS. Microsoft does not write the drivers in the Windows-space; the vendor does. More and more vendors are releasing Linux drivers with their new hardware, and the FOSS community writes the rest, with much larger variety. Try finding drivers to make Windows run on your Sparc or PowerPC hardware!
What I hope is this; Intel and AMD purchase Ati and Nvidia respectively, they open up all the specs and allow prices, supply and demand, and volume to sort out things. Screw secrecy when you have the production facilities to provide the whole kit to the OEM vendors; video card, chipset, processor etc. all under the same roof; they'll compete supplying the whole thing, not just the graphics card, thus, if they do opensource their drivers, they won't actually lose any competitive edge.
inux will not gain acceptance by simply mimicking what already exists. Why change at all, if it will just be more of the same? Developers - don't waste your time striving for compatibility with product X (e.g., Exchange) - strive for compatibility with innovative standard Y (e.g., CalDAV), supported by N other products. As these products get better and more accepted, those that are not compatibile will fade away.
True; create a product, end to end; server and client, which utilises open standards protocols and provides the same level of functionality as the commercial products.
These exist NOW; Sun sells the Solaris Enterprise System, which includes EVERYTHING which is included with Exchange; you can use Outlook with it, or Evolution - and yet, why the hell don't people use it? I mean, I'd love to know why a company chooses expensive proprietary software from Lotus or Microsoft when Sun can provide the SAME level of funcationality at a LOWER price.
Same goes for the Kolab project as well; why are these pushed off by the high flying CIO's - the fact that there aren't multibillion dollar marketing budgets behind them? the fact that they don't include cheap gimicy crap; the fact that they don't have smooth talking, silver toungued sales represenatives with ethics so low, they rival Karl Rove in in the "who can be the most unethical".
Edited 2006-07-23 03:47
Member since:2005-07-07
These exist NOW; Sun sells the Solaris Enterprise System, which includes EVERYTHING which is included with Exchange; you can use Outlook with it, or Evolution - and yet, why the hell don't people use it? I mean, I'd love to know why a company chooses expensive proprietary software from Lotus or Microsoft when Sun can provide the SAME level of funcationality at a LOWER price.
/* personal */
Simple case in my opinion. Why Novell, IBM, MS over Sun? I wouldn't trust something beng written in java.
Beside the fact that Notes is the most usable and extendable platform as server.
p.s. I couldn't say that I wouldn't make a suicide if someone would force me to use their client for one day, though.
Lower price is not what it is setting the limits. When people consider prices/features, they mostly only see two limits, features or free. Between those two is where decisions happen'.
Same goes for the Kolab project as well; why are these pushed off by the high flying CIO's - the fact that there aren't multibillion dollar marketing budgets behind them? the fact that they don't include cheap gimicy crap; the fact that they don't have smooth talking, silver toungued sales represenatives with ethics so low, they rival Karl Rove in in the "who can be the most unethical".
Problem with Kolab is that it is mostly KDE specific. And mostly lacking functionality comparing to any platform named before.
Member since:
2005-07-29
One key point I want to throw out, (it will apply most to #14):
Windows to Linux is oranges to apple-seeds. We need to either compare the NT Kernel to Linux, Win32 to GNU/Linux, or compare Windows XP to Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, etc. When comparing to Windows, distros are so unique and varied that you cannot just refer to them as "Linux". There is no Linux "OS" in the Windows sense of the words "OS". And we should not *expect* Ubuntu, SuSE, and Redhat to be any more similar than Apple and Windows, as they are different companies. It is purely well-planned convenience that there *is* software that can be used on all Linux distros.
13) can I trust open source drivers for my critical business work? even seldom corruption or process deadlock could cause big problems. And when it's time to upgrade hardware will the O.S. drivers be ready, even after they've had to reverse engineer the spec?
Can you trust closed source drivers? What if you are a US government contractor or big US company oft targetted for corporate espionage? Can you run those closed source Taiwanese motherboard drivers?
The driver readiness for your hardware upgrade has little to do with the OS. Microsoft does not write the drivers in the Windows-space; the vendor does. More and more vendors are releasing Linux drivers with their new hardware, and the FOSS community writes the rest, with much larger variety. Try finding drivers to make Windows run on your Sparc or PowerPC hardware!
14) where the heck is X installed? well does the dist use GNU /usr/local/... or the LSB standard, or more of a debian deriv or slack or bsd?
Why does it matter? We are using software for either Windows, or Ubuntu, or Redhat, or ..., and therefore it is packaged appropriately for that environment. It doesn't matter to me, the normal user, as the packaging takes care of it.
As a power-user, it might matter, as I may want to step outside the box, but as a power-user I know enough to control that - even if it is Windows freeware that wants to install to "c:", or c:[company name][software].
15) boot problems but don't want to reinstal whole system? win = /fixmbr, lin = (lilo, grub, hda0, hd0, /boot, dd if=/bkup/hd0_boot_part.img of=... bs=...)
How do you run fixmbr if you can't boot? You must be using a very limited, command-line only, DOS based, user-unfriendly Windows boot disk. Or you are using the ASCII graphics based Windows Install CD Rescue mode. I'd much rather use the GUI repair modes of your distros LiveCD/Install CD.
I will admit, users do not want to change from what they know. But if Linux distros simply become what is already known, we will lose all of the possible innovation. It will take time, but if some Linux flavor is truly the best, it will be accepted. But mark this - Linux will not gain acceptance by simply mimicking what already exists. Why change at all, if it will just be more of the same? Developers - don't waste your time striving for compatibility with product X (e.g., Exchange) - strive for compatibility with innovative standard Y (e.g., CalDAV), supported by N other products. As these products get better and more accepted, those that are not compatibile will fade away.